Chch is a special case, after earthquake people moved away businesses moved away. The population dipped therefore no demand. It shouldn’t be used as a study case for Auckland
Why not do an analysis on the material cost for a house type x in NZ, Australia, USA, UK and Europe. If we strip out the transport costs, it may highlight the inflated cost of materials in NZ
The council doesn't own enough land to open up for these projections nor do they have enough fiscal ability to build and maintain the infrastructure. The infrastructure also requires alot of land. It's a 'push it until it breaks' hypotheses.
The council doesn't have to own they land, theyll just be required to ease zoning regulations on property owners. Yeah, the infra is a problem, but that will supposedlly be covered by developers. For me the main problem is externalities like traffic noise, flood risk etc.
I’m not sure Australia is better example of affordable housing. We bitching about housing prices in NZ, Auckland house prices are about 7.1 times of median household income, Wellington is 6.3, Sydney is well over 13. You do the maths.
@@ericshang7744 Sydney, Melbourne.. I agree. Its not fairytale over there. I compare Brisbane( even Adelaide) because it is comparable to Auckland, similar population, better job opportunities at least in my industry, 10% Super.. Sounds better than slaving for mortgage till I am 60 over here...
Infrastructure includes people. How are developers going to fund/find more GP's, Dentists, Vets, Nurses etc..? I live in a growing town within Auckland sprawl. No Drs available, no dentist, schools are struggling. Hospital competency/ quality rates are lowering. Flooding the market is not sustainable on resources. We are screwed.
Housing supply doesn't directly effect GPs etc, except to lower their costs a little. It's just an entirely separate issue. I do agree that sprawl can mean longer trips to access those services, so density should be prioritised. But if people choose to live in newly built sprawl that shows they prefer longer trips and better housing, meaning the build has a net benefit.
Both of you got it wrong. Developers would maximise their profits. They release a little when market is soft and they increase prices when demand is high.
Big problem. Who is going to build them ? The last government encouraged people to go straight into trades ( forget uni ) now with falling consents they are learning how unstable their income can be, how the banks are reluctant give them a Morgage many of them are questioning their decision to be in construction So are we going to allow more migrants in to fill the gap ? By far the biggest cost factors for housing are the extortionate material prices and the totally unnecessary costs incurred jumping through hoops at councils demand to get resource or building consent
I have a 2 bedroom house centrally located i Palmerston North, 5 minutes walk from train station and a block over from a main arterial route. Am I better to rent out the whole house for a year or two to get my mortgage down $277000 ?
Is it time to skip past the Covid years (including the 12 months after lockdowns ceased) when looking at longitudinal data? It was an anomalous time and it seems that we're starting to see the before and after traces line up.
![Warhammer 40k: Space Marine 2 | เพื่อจักรพรรดิ ! [ตอนเดียวจบ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4M0ckYMA4-U/mqdefault.jpg)
Chch is a special case, after earthquake people moved away businesses moved away. The population dipped therefore no demand. It shouldn’t be used as a study case for Auckland
Opening remark…’are house prices still going to go up’! They are gonna down and have been for months.
Months is a very short amount of time. They will continue to rise as the price of everything will continue to rise
Why not do an analysis on the material cost for a house type x in NZ, Australia, USA, UK and Europe. If we strip out the transport costs, it may highlight the inflated cost of materials in NZ
The council doesn't own enough land to open up for these projections nor do they have enough fiscal ability to build and maintain the infrastructure. The infrastructure also requires alot of land. It's a 'push it until it breaks' hypotheses.
The council doesn't have to own they land, theyll just be required to ease zoning regulations on property owners. Yeah, the infra is a problem, but that will supposedlly be covered by developers. For me the main problem is externalities like traffic noise, flood risk etc.
I am outta NZ.
Brisbane, $750K, 500m2 house. Within 30 Mins of CBD.
Which suburb? Crime?
I’m not sure Australia is better example of affordable housing. We bitching about housing prices in NZ, Auckland house prices are about 7.1 times of median household income, Wellington is 6.3, Sydney is well over 13. You do the maths.
@@ericshang7744 Sydney, Melbourne.. I agree. Its not fairytale over there.
I compare Brisbane( even Adelaide) because it is comparable to Auckland, similar population, better job opportunities at least in my industry, 10% Super.. Sounds better than slaving for mortgage till I am 60 over here...
brisbane is a 3rd/4th rate city in Aus...
Infrastructure includes people. How are developers going to fund/find more GP's, Dentists, Vets, Nurses etc..? I live in a growing town within Auckland sprawl. No Drs available, no dentist, schools are struggling. Hospital competency/ quality rates are lowering. Flooding the market is not sustainable on resources. We are screwed.
Housing supply doesn't directly effect GPs etc, except to lower their costs a little. It's just an entirely separate issue.
I do agree that sprawl can mean longer trips to access those services, so density should be prioritised. But if people choose to live in newly built sprawl that shows they prefer longer trips and better housing, meaning the build has a net benefit.
So you will be able to buy a 3 bedroom state house with a yard in a bad area for under 350k like you could 10 years ago?
Both of you got it wrong. Developers would maximise their profits. They release a little when market is soft and they increase prices when demand is high.
Big problem. Who is going to build them ?
The last government encouraged people to go straight into trades ( forget uni ) now with falling consents they are learning how unstable their income can be, how the banks are reluctant give them a Morgage many of them are questioning their decision to be in construction
So are we going to allow more migrants in to fill the gap ?
By far the biggest cost factors for housing are the extortionate material prices and the totally unnecessary costs incurred jumping through hoops at councils demand to get resource or building consent
Going straight into trades is smart advice. To answer your question yes they will keep importing migrants. It's called the great replacement theory
It costs too much to build houses. everywhere costs 1mill for a new 3bdroom house, even in the backend of nowhere.
This is what they are ignoring!
NZD is falling against property. Not the other way around. Don’t get it twisted
I have a 2 bedroom house centrally located i Palmerston North, 5 minutes walk from train station and a block over from a main arterial route. Am I better to rent out the whole house for a year or two to get my mortgage down $277000 ?
With a lead in of 5-8 years, what's the likelyhood of a change of government scrapping this policy?
Absolutely zero mention of "us" as the public, this is just a recipe for expensive urban sprawl
cheap for them, expensive for us
Come out to howick. 1 house busted down. 7 2 bedrooms gone up in that space. Good economics but no one is buying them.
Is it time to skip past the Covid years (including the 12 months after lockdowns ceased) when looking at longitudinal data? It was an anomalous time and it seems that we're starting to see the before and after traces line up.
Its all talk. We have jack all money now that it was wasted on HNZ.
All new houses are funded by private borrowing. The houses need to affordable compared to existing homes otherwise buyers buy those.
Enjoy renting saving a lot more